Should David Cameron resign?

[reelingintheyears]

Given that Paul Stephenson and John Yates have done so over their 'misjudgements' when hiring Neil Wallis should DC be accountable for his poor judgement in hiring Andy Coulson?

Governed by the unions? When exactly? Even the most extreme Tory couldn't pretend that's been the case since the 70s, if then. Blair and Brown spent most of their time in power picking fights with the unions to appease the right-wing press.

Murdoch smashed the Fleet Street unions with the gleeful assistance of Margaret Thatcher, who then went on to wage the Falklands war ("GOTCHA') and the conquest of the miners, etc., with the loud support of his mouthpieces. Getting into bed with Murdoch has become a necessity ever since if you wanted your political career to take off. And while a price has been paid by everyone who did so, ultimately a price has been paid by the electorate and especially by those among the public whose lives are intimately connected to the way the winds of government policy blow; the armed forces and the poor.

Allowing Murdoch into the fold has therefore constituted a massive error of judgement on the part of every politician who embraced him. There is absolutely no way Cameron could not have been aware of the importance of having Murdoch behind him (given the Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown precedent already set) and the hiring of Coulson, whether he knew about details of hacking or not, was already a massive compromise of democracy and democratic values in favour of winning elections and serving the electorate afterwards.

It is precisely because there are other really important things happening right now (the Euro crisis, the future of the Eurozone, the economy, the US debt crisis, war in Libya and Afghanistan, famine and turmoil in east Africa, the whole Pakistan imbroglio, to mention a few) that we need to be absolutely sure who is actually running the country, who owes whom a scratch on the back, and why.

• ... and serving entities other than the electorate afterwards.

mathanxiety, what do you do for a living? you are marvellous.

Think he got where he is with help from Murdoch and The Sun. Even then, needed a coalition with Lib Dems. I don't trust any of them. Sad but true.

"Murdoch smashed the Fleet Street unions with the gleeful assistance of Margaret Thatcher, who then went on to wage the Falklands war ("GOTCHA') and the conquest of the miners"

So Thatcher should have let the unions to continue to hold the country to ransom along with allowing Argentina to invade our sovereign territory

This is interesting (from the \link{http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html?pagewanted=7\NYTimes} last Sept)

'BY THE SPRING of this year, News International?s papers had firmly switched their support from Labour to the Tories. An avalanche of unforgiving coverage culminated on April 8, one month before the general election, in a Sun story headlined ?Brown?s a Clown.?

Brown?s strategists assumed that Murdoch?s motives were not purely ideological. They drew up a campaign document conjuring Murdoch?s wish list should David Cameron become prime minister. Among the top items they identified was the weakening of the government-financed BBC, one of Murdoch?s biggest competitors and long a target of criticism from News International executives.

On May 11, David Cameron officially assumed the position and elevated Coulson to the head of communications. Within the week, Rupert Murdoch arrived at 10 Downing Street for a private meeting with the new prime minister. Cameron?s administration criticized the BBC in July for ?extraordinary and outrageous waste? during difficult financial times and proposed cutting its budget.'

(And when did they decide that they could safely nod through the BSkyB deal? )

The whole article is fascinating in fact, & pulls together lots of bits of information over the years covered

The point is not whether the unions were 'holding the country to ransom' or whether Argentina invaded a handful of islands few had heard of up to the moment they were invaded. The rights and wrongs of Thatcher's policies and actions in government are not the point -- all but her courting of Murdoch.

The point is that Thatcher allowed Murdoch to inveigle himself into the public square under an invisible cloak, where he has displayed remarkable staying power. She cheerfully climbed aboard the tiger regardless of the possible consequences -- the debasement of political culture and discourse for the sake of short term gain, paving the way for someone far stronger and more ruthless than a whole roomful of Arthur Scargills to hold the country to ransom, through future generations of politicians willing to compromise their political integrity for the temporary and conditional loan of his influence via the media outlets.

Let's not forget that RM is not just ruthless and ambitious but unaccountable (except to shareholders of NI whose criteria in judging RM are limited to the fortunes of their investment), unlike the union leaders.

Definately the man is corrupt and should never have been put in power, plus he's a Tory. He has no clue how to run this country.

As it stands I have no confidence in anything he says. He must give a straight answer to a straight question - did he ever discuss BskyB bid with senior NI executives - Yes or No. If the answer is yes, he should give details and let others decide whether or not they were appropriate discussions. The degree of obfuscation yesterday was breath taking. He is turning himself inside out with his contorsions as he tries not to lie, or so it appears. If there were no conversations why not just say no?

Yes he should - not that anyone better would replace him.

Both Labour and the Tories are tainted by this (maybe other parties too) but I don't think DC should resign. I think we Brits get too carried away with demanding resignations when there is a whiff of scandal instead of thinking what is the best way to sort it out. I don't think there's a credible alternative to replace him at the moment anyway - Clegg has enough gravitas in my view but he's from a minority party so couldn't see it working in our current political system.

I would rather have a government that is committed to sorting this out than complete turmoil in our political system whilst a new leader is found or new government formed!

Indeed,many folks up and down the country would love someone of the calibre of Winston Churchill to be resurrected to clean the country top down in morality,ethics,honesty,justice and liberty and make it a true,genuine democracy which is transparent,honest,fair and equal and no one is above the law as established in English law,whihc states that neither the King or Queen or a commoner or a PM is above the law.Indeed,justice must be done and seen to be done is another principle of law as well a ignorance of the law is no defence.Hence,would a lie detector test as advocated by Steve Waugh,Aussie cricketer help to sort out wo is lying and who is telling the truth wihout resorting to torture or water boarding cruel methods whihc no doubt some would be thinking of applying to Murdochs,Politicons and cronnies as well as tom,dick and harry.phew.
Indeed,hundred years is a long time but many UK citizens would be thinking of grandpas,dads,uncles,mums who gave end all and be all in wars of the 1st and 2nd world wars for freedom,liberty,justice,equality,morality,justice and humanity,in a nation once considered ,a nation of animal lovers.
Indeed,Uk has gone down in morality,ethics,quality of services,justice and is seen as mirred in sins.Equality law was passed in India in 1800s but not in UK where mums and sisters are still struggling for pari pasu as Bishops and PMs as only one has been elected so far.i.e Maggie.
Indeed,many Indian troops fighting and dying in 1st world war treated in Brighton pavillion,whihc was one a bordello of the Royals and the daily Mail published a picture of Indian soldier with an english nurse whihc upset the high ranking military officer as there were strict censorship laws of not showing sexual liasions betwen Indians and English girls in films,news papers etc.
But look today and one sees porn everywhere and Rupert Murdochs Sun paper slowly started with page three topless girl and now women are shown as easy meat for predators instead of being respected as co equals and treated with respect and dignity as no one comes into the world but through Mums holy passage.so why degrade and abuse it?
hence,sadly none of the PMs in recent past have done well to get britain back to a once noble age of chivarly,nobility and respect as the down ward drift continues.My late English mother in law,whose dad was gassed in first word war and her brothers and cousins fought and one died in second world war whilst she sacrificed by working in ammunition factory whilst the boms were going off in londons blitz and so did the rest of the family ,did say when asked to comment by me,as she had perception of what she thought of Tony Blair when elected as PM.She replied that he looked weak and then ,he wasnt sincere and aksed about David Camerrn,her reply was that he looked dodgy but then she added that in politics,one has to be cunning.but surely not lying.so what next for our country and peoples and what can mothers and grandmas do to make society co equals as for sons as for daughters and grand daghters as young gilrs listen to Doris days songs:Que Serrah serrah when I was young,I aksed my mother ,what will I be-.I rest my case.

Lord Tebbit -the real one, not our NormanTebbit - on Cameron (from the Graun blog):

'one of the more considered assessments of David Cameron's Commons performance comes from Norman Tebbit, writing late last night on Comment is free. Sometimes too fervent in the dislike of Cameron to be sufficiently balanced, here he makes the point that whether or not Andy Coulson assured the PM of his probity, it was clearly ? and not just in hindsight ? a huge risk to appoint him. Tebbit concludes: "This affair has shown up the prime minister's lack of ability, or will, to think things through." He also includes my favourite quote of the saga so far, from an unnamed Lords colleague, on Cameron's repeated argument he gave Coulson "a second chance":

He's the prime minister, not a bloody probation officer.'

love it

\link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/20/david-cameron-lack-foresight-saga\this is the whole piece}

'It may be that we will realise somewhere down the line that while the attention of the political class, parliament, government, media and the police affair has been so focused on the political fallout of the Murdoch affair, other even more dangerous threats have not been receiving the attention they deserved. That would be a serious moment for Cameron, and the "heir to Blair" should break the habit of armchair government before it breaks him. The bloggers calling for him to go are, at present, mostly the usual suspects. They do not have a successor. But that could change, if his style of government does not.'

"The usual suspects" - does that include us?

Tory has nothing to do with it - Blair and Brown were just as involved and matey with RB etc. Also the public - maybe not self-righteous MNetters and their counterparts - but other millions - are complicit in providing a market for the sort of salacious, unprincipled 'journalism' at fault here. What good would the resignation of the PM do other than cuase more upheaval and uncertainty when we least need it?

Pollyglot, that is the really important question here. The issue is access to the PM's ear. The ramifications are huge (hence the verbal gymnastics).

(In light of the Vince Cable business, I think the answer can be assumed to be Yes.)